No Trespassing Signs on Crown Land

[ianm]

So, I've seen this a few times now. Is it possible to obtain rights to exclusive access of crown land and post "no trespassing" signage? Or is that totally bogus? Is there a way to get a printed map of an area showing crown land/reserve/private? I've done a bit of a search on here and the best I saw was to use imapBC but I can't get the layers to work.

Thanks in advance!

Ian

[Danicus]

For cattle grazing yes, but it's very limited in use. Is it possible the Crown Land ended and a land use title began, or is the sign new to an area you frequent and know is Crown Land?

[Sofa King]

lots of people put up "no trespassing" signs where it's perfectly legal for anyone to go.
they are just trying to intimidate unknowing people into staying away.

[ianm]

I figured as much...it just so happens that the signs are brand spanking new. The only thing I'm concerned about is that there is a very small chance it could be private, so I'd love to find a way to confirm my suspicions definitively.

[Sofa King]

For cattle grazing yes, but it's very limited in use. Is it possible the Crown Land ended and a land use title began, or is the sign new to an area you frequent and know is Crown Land?

that's bullshit.
if it's crown land they shouldn't be able to stop people just because of cattle grazing.
they have their own land where they can keep their cattle and the people out.
they shouldn't be able to also do that on crown land.

[ryanb]

How can you say it's not private if you don't even know how to check?

My guess would be that they are legit signs and it's private property.

[835]

just bring out the shotty and pump a bunch of rounds into the signs... they will get the point

[BigfishCanada]

I know some public areas that have private signs posted, pisses me off, i know the locals that did it also, said they were tired or road hunters blasting away

[Sofa King]

How can you say it's not private if you don't even know how to check?

My guess would be that they are legit signs and it's private property.

see, there's the thing though.
you are one of those that just believes the sign and carries on.
I'm assuming that the op is fairly sure that it's crown land, but wondering if there is some clause where one can put up the signs.
best thing to do for sure is to contact the powers-that-be and try to confirm.
one has to be positive before thinking about crossing that line.

[ianm]

see, there's the thing though.
you are one of those that just believes the sign and carries on.
I'm assuming that the op is fairly sure that it's crown land, but wondering if there is some clause where one can put up the signs.
best thing to do for sure is to contact the powers-that-be and try to confirm.
one has to be positive before thinking about crossing that line.


Yup, you are correct Sofa. 99% sure it's crown land, and the purpose for posting is to figure out if this is bogus or not, and if there is in fact some legitimacy to posting the signs (whether or not grazing rights equate to complete control over the land in question etc).

Who might be the "powers-that-be"? I'm no dummy, and I want surety about my suspicions before I just traipse onto what could be someone's off-the-grid plot of land.

Thanks!

[Slinky Pickle]

You can view it quite easily in Google Earth.

Download this file from the BC Gov website.. http://openmaps.gov.bc.ca/kml/BCGov_Web_Map_Library.kml

Open the file from within Google Earth and then look at the legend on the left hand side. Once you expand the "Data BC Web Map Library" you should find "BC Gov Land Ownership Status WMS". Expand that deep enough and you will find "Integrated Cadastral Fabric". Expand that guy and you will find what you are looking for. Zoom in on the area you are wondering about and then wait for a few seconds while it updates that land ownership overlay for that area.

PM me if you still need help.

[two-feet]

If they have a grazing lease then it can be a bit different if I remember correctly, if it is fenced you can not shoot over the fence, or if there are animals around (domestic) then no hunting also. But I am getting the impression that neither of these apply?

[Sofa King]

If they have a grazing lease then it can be a bit different if I remember correctly, if it is fenced you can not shoot over the fence, or if there are animals around (domestic) then no hunting also. But I am getting the impression that neither of these apply?

that's not true.
there's animals around everywhere out there.
you can 100% hunt if there's cows around or not.
and those fences are put up by our government, not the ranchers.
there's lots of areas of crown land with basically public fences running through them.
bottom line, just know if it's crown land or not.

[junkyard_g]

Wildlife Act (Section 39) - A person is not permitted to hunt on cultivated
land or on Crown land which is subject to a grazing lease while the land is
occupied by livestock, without the consent of the owner, lessee or occupant of
the land.

can't shoot if theres livestock if there is an active grazing lease. can still drive thru but can't shoot. each region has dates that the cows have to be off crown land I believe.

hunted on the other side of the ministry erected grazing lease fence lots of times, just not when cattle there. even hung ribbon line for the ministry for the fence builders back in the day.

[Singleshotneeded]

Quite a few clever slimers are posting these signs to keep other hunters out of their good spots...ignore them if the area isn't also fenced...

[ACE]

Just ignore the signage ...... a trail camera will get a blurry photo of you, a dead game animal will be found in close proximity .....
Some member here will post the blurry photo, and imply that you 'know something' about the dead game animal ....

:mrgreen: Then we can all speculate about what you ................ _______________________ (fill in the blank)

[ruger#1]

Just ignore the signage ...... a trail camera will get a blurry photo of you, a dead game animal will be found in close proximity .....
Some member here will post the blurry photo, and imply that you 'know something' about the dead game animal ....

:mrgreen: Then we can all speculate about what you ................ _______________________ (fill in the blank) not a good idea to ignore the signs. We just posted or field in deroche. It is private property. To get to crown you have to walk 3 kms . We are missing 3 cows thanks to someone leaving the top gate open. And if it is our property. It is a good idea to not park in front or around the gate.we have a small gravel pit, and three dump trucks. We don't wait for tow trucks. The loader moves them fine for us. A few bad apples screwed it for some people. There is on that likes to steel and light grass fires. We will be catching up to him.

[Sofa King]

Wildlife Act (Section 39) - A person is not permitted to hunt on cultivated
land or on Crown land which is subject to a grazing lease while the land is
occupied by livestock, without the consent of the owner, lessee or occupant of
the land.

can't shoot if theres livestock if there is an active grazing lease. can still drive thru but can't shoot. each region has dates that the cows have to be off crown land I believe.

hunted on the other side of the ministry erected grazing lease fence lots of times, just not when cattle there. even hung ribbon line for the ministry for the fence builders back in the day.

I'm guessing that a grazing lease is different than just them putting their cattle to free-range on crown land?
why would they get a grazing lease?
I don't see why they'd spend $$ when they don't have to.

[ruger#1]

I'm guessing that a grazing lease is different than just them putting their cattle to free-range on crown land?
why would they get a grazing lease?
I don't see why they'd spend $$ when they don't have to. depends , how much is the lease. It could be $1. The government pays for the fencing.

[Sofa King]

depends , how much is the lease. It could be $1. The government pays for the fencing.

k, is a grazing lease different from the cows up there free-ranging?
the ranch pays like $1 and change or something for each cow they put up there.
but that's not a grazing lease.

[ruger#1]

k, is a grazing lease different from the cows up there free-ranging?
the ranch pays like $1 and change or something for each cow they put up there.
but that's not a grazing lease. king you would have to talk to a rancher. Our property is private. We payed for our fence. Sorry I can not help.

[Sofa King]

king you would have to talk to a rancher. Our property is private. We payed for our fence. Sorry I can not help.

when you say "our property", are you referring to crown land?

[ianm]

Just ignore the signage ...... a trail camera will get a blurry photo of you, a dead game animal will be found in close proximity .....
Some member here will post the blurry photo, and imply that you 'know something' about the dead game animal ....

:mrgreen: Then we can all speculate about what you ................ _______________________ (fill in the blank)

Haha trial by HBC! You figured out the real reason behind my post! I don't want to be trail cammed!

[ruger#1]

when you say "our property", are you referring to crown land? no. It is private property. Our as in family.

[Drillbit]

Cattle usually have to be home by Oct 15. So you can hunt then.

Hunting sucks around cattle anyways.


There are lot of bogus signs out there. I always ask permission at the closest place and they'll tell you who owns if they don't.

[Drillbit]

Should be mandatory to put a phone number on the signs so people can call and verify.

[Dannybuoy]

Cattle usually have to be home by Oct 15. So you can hunt then.

Hunting sucks around cattle anyways.


There are lot of bogus signs out there. I always ask permission at the closest place and they'll tell you who owns if they don't.

Who says hunting sucks around cattle ? Ha ! it makes it easier ....you don't have to be quiet walking in the bush as the deer are used to hearing the noisy cows .

[Dannybuoy]

I'm guessing that a grazing lease is different than just them putting their cattle to free-range on crown land?
why would they get a grazing lease?
I don't see why they'd spend $$ when they don't have to.

Free range ? There is no "free " Any rancher that puts cattle on crown land pays so much a head and has a limit of how many head he can put on each range lease. The cattle have dates of which they have to be off the crown land as well .. Oct 1 ? but not sure about that as it could vary thru out the province

[Wrj]

If EVERY "No Hunting" & "No trespassing" sign on Van Island was legit, we wouldn't be able to hunt at all....haha. Besides Ian, we both know you move so slow a game camera wouldn't activate! :twisted:

[Sofa King]

Free range ? There is no "free " Any rancher that puts cattle on crown land pays so much a head and has a limit of how many head he can put on each range lease. The cattle have dates of which they have to be off the crown land as well .. Oct 1 ? but not sure about that as it could vary thru out the province

by "free" I wasn't referring to cost.
I already stated that they pay a certain amount per cow.
by "free-range" I mean they aren't penned in.

[Sofa King]

Should be mandatory to put a phone number on the signs so people can call and verify.

10000% agree.

[Sofa King]

Cattle usually have to be home by Oct 15. So you can hunt then.

Hunting sucks around cattle anyways.


There are lot of bogus signs out there. I always ask permission at the closest place and they'll tell you who owns if they don't.

I was always skeptical about hunting right amongst the cows.
but that all changed 2 days ago.
finding a hole holding ten deer, four does, two 2points, one 3point, and three 4points right amongst the cattle.

and as the other post said, you can worry less about making noise as they aren't so jumpy because there are cows stomping all over the place.

[ianm]

If EVERY "No Hunting" & "No trespassing" sign on Van Island was legit, we wouldn't be able to hunt at all....haha. Besides Ian, we both know you move so slow a game camera wouldn't activate! :twisted:

Haha Joel, I don't know what's worse, your jokes or...well, no...your jokes are horrible :mrgreen:

[Sofa King]

a good example of this is douglas lake ranch.
they even put gates on public roads that are nowhere near their property.

[J_T]

by "free" I wasn't referring to cost.
I already stated that they pay a certain amount per cow.
by "free-range" I mean they aren't penned in. A grazing lease is equivalent to private land and use is restricted by the lease holder. It does not have to have cattle on it and it doesn't have to be fenced.

[ruger#1]

a good example of this is douglas lake ranch.
they even put gates on public roads that are nowhere near their property. we have dairy cows. They are dry cows. We are in the Fraser valley. Not much if any lease land here. Just lots of crime. And tresspassing!

[Swamp mule]

Re: public hunting land
To all hunters. In reference to above comments and inquiries.
There are grazing leases and there are grazing licences. Grazing licences are labeled and start with the three letters "RAN" (Range Agreement Number) Majority of the BC crown land is range lands covered by these 15 to 25 year renewal tenures that are fenced but also open to recreational activities to the general public a shared resource for all. The best common sense is respect for all fencelines and gates. Leave it as you found it. Access is not restricted on range tenures and are not posted by tenure holders. However, there are some instances where some tenure holders do post their crown range and do confuse their licenses as leases. So the best is to make sure that you know your area that you are hunting in and to make sure that you know that there are those three letters that are ahead of the ran number. Under range licenses, there are range use plans and within that document the dates that the livestock are to be off the range. However, if the stubble heights are met sooner than the dates then livestock must be off. The RUP's all vary in the province.

Now Grazing leases are an entirely different entity that should be respected by all. All grazing leases do not start with the three letters "RAN" but by numbers. All leases are renewable every 21yrs with a management plan. The biggest difference is that all leasee's pay a annual tax in addition to their forage fee. Every lease is not the same and some are different from each other. Access to these leases are restricted and require leasee permission. Should these leases be posted, ranchers can then charge all trespassers under the Trespass Act. There are a number of leases south of PG but there are a number in the Peace area and the size of leases vary. On the land status maps acquired at Corlanes are highlighted in a particular colour. It is the hunters responsibility to know where they are located and not crossing into these leases. I have been informed from local ranchers that most hunters are not shooting or taking signs and dropping them on the ground but rather taking them with them when they go through the fencelines and gates. Should you find gates locked at a lease access point then they are allowed to do so. The other issue is that some hunters are even cutting fences to gain access without consideration. This is now leading to ranchers closing their private lands and/or leases to all future hunting even if they complain about the wildlife impacts and want something to do about it. It is those that have lower ethics and morals that are impacting all others.
Community pastures. Check your regulations and know where they are and where the boundaries are that are closed to hunting and when they are open. Some do not allow hunting at all and are posted at the entrances to the pasture.

As for fencelines, the governments do not always supply the materials, this varies between districts and regions. I know in one area where it is the rancher whom is responsible for purchasing and constructing and maintaining the fencelines.

[ruger#1]

10000% agree. it should also be mandatory to have your hunters number on the front or back of your jacket. For identification purposes.

[Avalanche123]

it should also be mandatory to have your hunters number on the front or back of your jacket. For identification purposes.

Sure hope you are not serious.....

[Driften]

Re: public hunting land
To all hunters. In reference to above comments and inquiries.
There are grazing leases and there are grazing licences. Grazing licences are labeled and start with the three letters "RAN" (Range Agreement Number) Majority of the BC crown land is range lands covered by these 15 to 25 year renewal tenures that are fenced but also open to recreational activities to the general public a shared resource for all. The best common sense is respect for all fencelines and gates. Leave it as you found it. Access is not restricted on range tenures and are not posted by tenure holders. However, there are some instances where some tenure holders do post their crown range and do confuse their licenses as leases. So the best is to make sure that you know your area that you are hunting in and to make sure that you know that there are those three letters that are ahead of the ran number. Under range licenses, there are range use plans and within that document the dates that the livestock are to be off the range. However, if the stubble heights are met sooner than the dates then livestock must be off. The RUP's all vary in the province.

Now Grazing leases are an entirely different entity that should be respected by all. All grazing leases do not start with the three letters "RAN" but by numbers. All leases are renewable every 21yrs with a management plan. The biggest difference is that all leasee's pay a annual tax in addition to their forage fee. Every lease is not the same and some are different from each other. Access to these leases are restricted and require leasee permission. Should these leases be posted, ranchers can then charge all trespassers under the Trespass Act. There are a number of leases south of PG but there are a number in the Peace area and the size of leases vary. On the land status maps acquired at Corlanes are highlighted in a particular colour. It is the hunters responsibility to know where they are located and not crossing into these leases. I have been informed from local ranchers that most hunters are not shooting or taking signs and dropping them on the ground but rather taking them with them when they go through the fencelines and gates. Should you find gates locked at a lease access point then they are allowed to do so. The other issue is that some hunters are even cutting fences to gain access without consideration. This is now leading to ranchers closing their private lands and/or leases to all future hunting even if they complain about the wildlife impacts and want something to do about it. It is those that have lower ethics and morals that are impacting all others.
Community pastures. Check your regulations and know where they are and where the boundaries are that are closed to hunting and when they are open. Some do not allow hunting at all and are posted at the entrances to the pasture.

As for fencelines, the governments do not always supply the materials, this varies between districts and regions. I know in one area where it is the rancher whom is responsible for purchasing and constructing and maintaining the fencelines.

Finally someone who actually took the time to know the regs. No wonder areas are closed to hunters when there is no respect - shoot the signs, who cares if there are cattle there, and so on. Try asking for permission to access these areas and you will probably be pleasantly surprised by the generosity of ranchers.

[Driften]

Cattle usually have to be home by Oct 15. So you can hunt then.

Hunting sucks around cattle anyways.


There are lot of bogus signs out there. I always ask permission at the closest place and they'll tell you who owns if they don't.
Not sure where you have gotten the date of Oct. 15, range permits vary greatly in BC and even in areas themselves. Kamloops for example has ranges where cattle stay until December 1. Also a Grazing Lease is year long so there can be cattle in them at any time. Asking is the best policy.

[leadpillproductions]

up north here I believe sept 1 they need to be off crown , if I remember correctly

[Swamp mule]

Not sure where you have gotten the date of Oct. 15, range permits vary greatly in BC and even in areas themselves. Kamloops for example has ranges where cattle stay until December 1. Also a Grazing Lease is year long so there can be cattle in them at any time. Asking is the best policy.

Grazing times vary in regions by the size of the operation and the timing. There are two reasons where cattle are to be taken off the range. Should the Stubble height be achieved prior to the roundup date then they must roundup at that time. Or should the date come before the stubble height is achieved then they must round up by that date. Most cattle are off by the middle of October. Grazing leases are not year long and does not allow cattle to be on them at any time. There are management plans that they must abide by and regulations as well.

[caddisguy]

What is the best way to find contact info for ranchers holding the cattle leases? I found myself on one last year... newb mistake before I knew about all the data / imapbc layer stuff. Iron Mountain in Merritt for example. If I remember right, there's a some cattle leases there and around Comstock along with some weather project or something. Not the best hunting area but there's some game around. Would be cool to get permission on the grounds I wouldn't shoot around the cows. I'd have to check the regs, but I'd be willing to take care of any wolves or coyotes if I come across any.

[adriaticum]

These cattle grazing leases are complete bullshit.
Next time when you wonder why there are no deer in lower half of the province think of cattle and logging.
First the loggers destroy their homes then cattle eat their food.

[Argali]

These cattle grazing leases are complete bullshit.
Next time when you wonder why there are no deer in lower half of the province think of cattle and logging.
First the loggers destroy their homes then cattle eat their food.

Except that cattle prefer grass while deer prefer browse and forbs . As long as cattle are not over grazed, there is little competition between cattle and deer (not counting planted crops!).
Perhaps you were thinking of elk?

[cambo]

and logging promotes under growth that deer eat,look in an old growth forest, not much for them to eat there. good places to hide/bed but not eat.

[squamishhunter]

I have no trespassing signs in my camp on my mineral claim, as I am legally allowed to "enter and occupy" my claim. I do not restrict access to anywhere else on my claim except where I am actively working. This sort of thing is under the BC Mines Act.

[buck nash]

So what's the rule for cattle not rounded up by the specified time? Are they considered feral class c..?

[ruger#1]

These cattle grazing leases are complete bullshit.
Next time when you wonder why there are no deer in lower half of the province think of cattle and logging.
First the loggers destroy their homes then cattle eat their food. Yes Rockcreek And Midway are prime examples of this. Shake your head.

[Driften]

Grazing times vary in regions by the size of the operation and the timing. There are two reasons where cattle are to be taken off the range. Should the Stubble height be achieved prior to the roundup date then they must roundup at that time. Or should the date come before the stubble height is achieved then they must round up by that date. Most cattle are off by the middle of October. Grazing leases are not year long and does not allow cattle to be on them at any time. There are management plans that they must abide by and regulations as well.
Incorrect, as a Grazing Lease holder that pays land taxes on the parcel it is valid not only year round but they are renewed for 21 years. I suggest that you contact the Range department of FLNRO where they can provide you with this information. The RCMP will also inform you that the Trespass Act applies to Grazing Leases.

[ianm]

Thanks to everyone for posting all this info! I guess my next question is whether or not you can use a road to cross private property if it leads to more crown land, and there is a no trespassing sign hung? I'm starting to think I might need a law degree to figure all this stuff out...

[squamishhunter]

Private or Lease? More common to cross leases to access crown land.

I use http://www.data.gov.bc.ca/dbc/geographic/view_and_analyze/imapbc/index.page to figure out leases, grants, closures, etc. You can add them in layers in your area. As well, usually the contact info for the Lease-holders is available.

[ruger#1]

Trespass prohibited

4 (1) Subject to section 4.1, a person commits an offence if the person does any of the following:

(a) enters premises that are enclosed land;

(b) enters premises after the person has had notice from an occupier of the premises or an authorized person that the entry is prohibited;

(c) engages in activity on or in premises after the person has had notice from an occupier of the premises or an authorized person that the activity is prohibited.

(2) A person found on or in premises that are enclosed land is presumed not to have the consent of an occupier or an authorized person to be there.

(3) Subject to section 4.1, a person who has been directed, either orally or in writing, by an occupier of premises or an authorized person to

(a) leave the premises, or

(b) stop engaging in an activity on or in the premises,

commits an offence if the person

(c) does not leave the premises or stop the activity, as applicable, as soon as practicable after receiving the direction, or

(d) re-enters the premises or resumes the activity on or in the premises.

Trespasser must give name and address

8 (1) On the demand of an occupier of premises, or an authorized person, who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is on or in the premises, or was on or in the premises, in contravention of section 4 (1) (a), (b) or (c) or (3), the person must provide the occupier or authorized person with his or her correct name and address.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence.

(3) A person who contravenes subsection (1) and remains on or in the premises commits an offence.


Owners in rural area responsible for lawful fence

3 (1) Unless otherwise agreed, the owners of adjoining land in a rural area must make, keep up and repair the lawful fence and any natural boundary between their respective land.

(2) Each of the owners is liable to the other for 1/2 of any cost reasonably incurred for the purposes of subsection (1).

(3) This section is not binding on the government.

(4) This section does not apply on treaty lands.

[Doostien]

just bring out the shotty and pump a bunch of rounds into the signs... they will get the point

Holy Hell. What an attitude. It's no wonder people have such a disdain for hunters.


Should be mandatory to put a phone number on the signs so people can call and verify.

We did that on our property a few decades ago. Had to change our phone number because of all the harassment it lead to.


What is the best way to find contact info for ranchers holding the cattle leases? I found myself on one last year... newb mistake before I knew about all the data / imapbc layer stuff. Iron Mountain in Merritt for example. If I remember right, there's a some cattle leases there and around Comstock along with some weather project or something. Not the best hunting area but there's some game around. Would be cool to get permission on the grounds I wouldn't shoot around the cows. I'd have to check the regs, but I'd be willing to take care of any wolves or coyotes if I come across any.

Lease renewals are a matter of public record. You should be able to find a list of lease renewals online. Failing that, call the MFLNR range branch. They'll be able to tell you. Though, usually private property is attached to these leases, so if someone is living nearby chances are the lease might be theirs.


So what's the rule for cattle not rounded up by the specified time? Are they considered feral class c..?

Cattle are private property, if they are out past the date the rancher will be fined. Since most cattle are radio tagged, branded and have ear tags it isn't a hard thing to do. Killing any cow on open range is a criminal act. There are actually RCMP officers who deal specifically with livestock issues.


Thanks to everyone for posting all this info! I guess my next question is whether or not you can use a road to cross private property if it leads to more crown land, and there is a no trespassing sign hung? I'm starting to think I might need a law degree to figure all this stuff out...

Lots of FSRs run through leases. Most of the time they've been expropriated so it is legal to use the road. HOWEVER, since the government took the land out of leases, there are quite often covens which allow the lease holder to not fence the road off. In those cases leaving the road right of way is trespass.

[Swamp mule]

Incorrect, as a Grazing Lease holder that pays land taxes on the parcel it is valid not only year round but they are renewed for 21 years. I suggest that you contact the Range department of FLNRO where they can provide you with this information. The RCMP will also inform you that the Trespass Act applies to Grazing Leases.
Grazing leases are on a 21yr lease that is correct. They are yr round that is correct. However you can not have cattle on that land yr round. Leasee's must abide by their management plan that sets out the leaf stages and stubble heights. As for contacting the range dept. don't need to as I deal with it.

[ruger#1]

Grazing leases are on a 21yr lease that is correct. They are yr round that is correct. However you can not have cattle on that land yr round. Leasee's must abide by their management plan that sets out the leaf stages and stubble heights. As for contacting the range dept. don't need to as I deal with it. Not much stubble out there this year. Ranchers are having a hard time getting cattle in. They need cold weather. 15C and 20C temps are not helping.

[gcreek]

Grazing leases are on a 21yr lease that is correct. They are yr round that is correct. However you can not have cattle on that land yr round. Leasee's must abide by their management plan that sets out the leaf stages and stubble heights. As for contacting the range dept. don't need to as I deal with it.

My lease reads 365 days use.There is nothing to do with stubble height etc.

You may be mixing this up with some grazing licences that have been written by micro-managers.

[Drillbit]

Not sure where you have gotten the date of Oct. 15, range permits vary greatly in BC and even in areas themselves. Kamloops for example has ranges where cattle stay until December 1. Also a Grazing Lease is year long so there can be cattle in them at any time. Asking is the best policy.

Just my experience on several different ranches I hunt on. Learned something today, thanks!

[Looking_4_Jerky]

Also, for those relying on the IMAP ICF layer to determine private property, be warned that it is fraught with inaccuracies. Really have to pull the title to know for sure, as some private stuff can have reverted to Crown and then have been subject to a subsequent disposition, and there's also other reasons we won't get into.

And then yes, there are also the leases. IMAP should be fairly accurate in depicting these. They should not be confused with open range land, which is why we see cattle in cutblocks, etc at certain times of year. Ranchers can gain authorization to allow cattle to graze open range Crown land, but access to those areas may not be impeded. With grazing leases, the lessee has the right to control access year round regardless of whether it is fenced or livestock is present. Sucks, but it's true. The fact that any grazing leases are renewed is total bullshit. At one point, the Province adopted a policy where grazing leases were not being renewed at expiry, but rather were being replaced with licenses and/or permits. Cattleman's Association went political and the ball-less bureaucrats started renewing leases to those who already had them. To the best of my knowledge, new grazing leases are not being issued. In a day with so many competing land-uses, leases are not an appropriate form of tenure for grazing since the grazing can take take place just as effectively under tenures that don't allow control of access.

It should be noted that in some cases, when leases have been renewed, certain Provincial employees have actually done their due diligence and deleted access routes/trails through the leases that lead to lands beyond. In other words, you can legally traverse the leases on designated routes, but you still are prohibited from accessing the leased lands through which the routes run. They are not as common as one would hope, but you can identify these instances on IMAP by looking for leases where the color of the lease layer is absent over certain routes through the lease.

Regarding interspecific competition between cattle and ungulates, I'm not sure why the literature repeatedly points toward an absence of significant competition, and when I'm out on range land I can almost always find where cattle have ransacked tracts of shrubs and forbs that cattle aren't supposed to impact. Although I'm an Agrologist, I'm not a cattle expert, and yet I find evidence of cattle adversely impacting wildlife (ungulate and other) habitat on a regular basis. Certainly if I were a deer, I'd be averse to drinking out of watercourses that had been shat and pissed in for months by cattle.

[j270wsm]

When posting private property, what is minimum distance between signs? Or is there a minimum distance?

[Sitter]

The mind set of most BC rural land owners is different than those in Montana. There they welcome you on their property. Land is posted 'hunting with permission only' See the owner, he lets you on. Different in BC. When I used to see signs like that, on private land, or questionable signs, I used to get annoyed. It doesn't bug me anymore. I know of, and can find better hunting spots than what is posted with "No Hunting". Fer sher! BC is BIG!

[ratherbefishin]

So what do you do if you hunt on what you believe is crown land(but how you tell,I don't know)but it's posted,and you are confronted by the 'owner'and ordered off.....?

[ruger#1]

TRESPASS TO PRIVATE LAND

This is the first of four articles about access to deeded land. In this article, we will look at the Trespass Act (B.C.). In the next article we will review the different procedure and remedies available through common-law “tort” (wrong) of trespass. In subsequent articles we will look at roads and trails, and the many and varied ways that public access to private land can be obtained.
Trespass Act

The Trespass Act (B.C.) says that a person found inside enclosed land without the consent of the owner, lessee or occupier is a trespasser. So is someone who remains if asked to leave, or who re-enters after having been asked to leave and having done so.

If someone is found on enclosed land, there is a presumption that he or she is there without the owner’s permission. In other words, it is up to the trespasser to show that he or she has the permission of the owner, tenant, or occupier to be on the land.
Enclosed Land.

Enclosed land is defined as:

surrounded by a lawful fence defined under the Trespass Act;
surrounded by a lawful fence and a natural boundary or by a natural boundary alone; or
posted with signs prohibiting trespass according to the Act.

Note that unfenced land is included in the definition of “enclosed land” IF it is posted.
Lawful Fence.

A lawful fence is defined in the regulations, which are quoted in the next paragraph. However, a prosecution under the Trespass Act is not defeated only because the fence is not of a uniform height, or the spaces between the “bars, boards or rails” exceed 150 mm (about 6 inches).

The regulations describe a lawful fence as a fence substantially constructed from the ground to a height of at least 4 feet 6 inches, and consisting

of earth, stone, brick, concrete or iron
of logs, rails, boards or bars of wood or iron laid horizontally one above the other not more than 9 inches apart up to a height of 32 inches from the ground, and not more than 11 inches apart above that height, the bottom of the lowest log, rail, board or bar being at any point not more than 14 inches from the ground,
of upright posts, boards, palings, or pickets not more than 4 inches apart,
of woven standard gauge wire fencing secured to posts not more than 20 feet apart, with the lowest wire not more than 14 inches above the ground, the bottom and top wires to be not less than No. 9 ¾ gauge and the intervening wires not less than No. 12 ½ gauge
of barbed wire not less than No. 12 ½ gauge secured to posts not more than 24 feet apart, the lowest wire being not more than 14 inches from the ground, the wires being not more than 9 inches apart up to a height of 32 inches from the ground, and not more than 11 inches apart above that height, and being interlaced with cross wiring or fastened to wooden droppers or poles placed at regular intervals of not more than 6 feet,
of barbed wire not less than No.12 ½ gauge secured to posts not more than 16 ½ feet apart, the lowest wire being not more than 14 inches above the ground, the wires being not more than 9 inches apart up to a height of 32 inches form the ground, and not more than 11 inches apart above that height, except that
in the North and South Peace River Electoral Districts a legal fence of barbed wire shall consist of not less than 3 strands of barbed wire not less than No. 12 ½ gauge secured to posts not more than 16 ½ feet apart, the lowest wire being not more than 18 inches from the ground, the wires being not more than 16 inches apart up to a height of 34 inches from the ground, and not more than 14 inches apart above that height, and being fastened to wooden droppers or poles placed midway between posts, and
in that portion of the Province bounded on the south by 53 degrees latitude, on the north by 56 degrees latitude, on the east by the summit of the Rocky Mountains, and on the west by the Pacific Ocean, a legal fence of barbed wire shall consist of 4 strands of barbed wire not less than No. 12 ½ gauge secured to posts not more than 16 ½ feet apart the lowest wire being not more than 16 inches from the ground, the wires being not more than 12 inches apart up to a height of 52 inches from the ground, or
a combination of the materials specified in any two or more of the paragraphs (a) to (f).

As well, a hedge at least 4 foot 6 inches high, and any river bank or other natural boundary (if it will keep cattle out of any land), and any unfordable water body, are deemed to be a lawful fence, including any suitably constructed gates and cattle guards.

NOTE that there is a different definition for a lawful fence between the boundary of private land and a railway company’s land, and for protecting a stack of hay or grain.

The Trespass Act also contains the old Line Fences Act (B.C.) provision that makes adjacent property owners responsible for construction and repair of the fence between them. They are to share the reasonable costs of so doing.
Sign Posting Required.

Because of the difficulty of complying with the “lawful fence” regulation, to fit under the Act (and incidentally give yourself some Occupiers Liability Act (B.C.) protection), you must post a sign prohibiting trespass at each “ordinary access” to the enclosed land. You must post the sign so that it is clearly visible from the access where the sign is located, and the writing on it must be clearly legible in daylight. These requirements assume normal weather conditions. “Ordinary access” is not defined, and could mean footpaths as well as roads, if both exist. The Act goes on to say that substantial (rather than exact) compliance with the above provision is sufficient to prove that the land is enclosed land.

Note that a “No Hunting” sign is not adequate to prevent trespassing. The sign must say “Trespass prohibited” or “No Trespassing”, or similar content so that it is clear that trespass is prohibited. There is no requirement in the Act that the owner, tenant or occupier include his or her name or other information.
Offenses.

The trespasser commits an offence, and can be prosecuted under the Trespass Act. A person found on enclosed land must give his true name and address to the owner, tenant or occupier of the land, and if he does not do so, also commits an offence.

The investigation and prosecution of the offence is carried out by police and Crown counsel, like any other prosecution. A peace officer, including a conservation officer under the Wildlife Act (B.C.), can arrest a trespasser without warrant if he has reasonable and probable grounds to believe the person is on enclosed land without permission.

If the trespasser causes damage, he can be ordered to “make good all the damage”. If such an order is made, one cannot also sue for damages.

Of course the land owner’s challenge is to persuade the authorities that trespass is a serious matter and warrants their time and attention.
Penalty.

The penalty, if prosecuted for trespass, is under the Summary Conviction Act (B.C.), and is up to six months imprisonment or a fine of up to $2,000.
Exemption for Land Surveyors.

There is a special exemption for land surveyors and their assistants when actually engaged in their duties. If you refuse to permit a land surveyor or assistant to enter your property, even if cultivated, you commit an offence and if convicted, are liable for imprisonment for up to two months, or a fine of not more than $50. The surveyor must make good any damage he does.
Summary.

The Trespass Act provides that a person can be prosecuted for trespass, if the police, conservation officer, and Crown counsel are willing. If the police and Crown counsel are not willing to lay charges, then one can lay a private information and prosecute the charge with one’s own lawyer.

In the next article, we will compare the procedures and remedies under the Trespass Act, with the procedures and remedies available if the landowner sues the trespasser for the tort of trespass.

[ruger#1]

Methods of giving or posting notice

5 (1) For the purposes of paragraph (c) of the definition of "enclosed land", signs must be posted so that, in daylight and under normal weather conditions, from the approach to each ordinary point of access to the enclosed land,

(a) a sign is clearly visible,

(b) if a sign contains writing, the writing is clearly legible, and

(c) if a sign uses graphic representation, the graphic representation is clearly visible.

(2) For the purposes of section 4 (1) (b) or (c), notice may be given

(a) orally or in writing, or

(b) by means of a sign posted at or near an ordinary point of access to the premises so that, in daylight and under normal weather conditions from the approach to the ordinary point of access, the sign satisfies the requirements of subsection (1) (a), (b) and (c) of this section.

(3) In a prosecution for an offence under section 4 (1) (a), (b) or (c), proof that a sign that complies with subsection (1) or (2) (b) of this section, as applicable, was posted at the ordinary point of access used by the defendant to enter the premises is sufficient for the purpose of establishing, as applicable, that

(a) the premises are enclosed land, or

(b) notice was given for the purpose of section 4 (1) (b) or (c).

(4) A sign, posted in accordance with subsection (2) (b), that names an activity and has an oblique line drawn through the name or that shows a graphic representation of an activity and has an oblique line drawn through the representation is sufficient for the purpose of giving notice that the activity is prohibited.

[Sitter]

... and drift fences don't count. I hop them all the time.

[Sofa King]

So what do you do if you hunt on what you believe is crown land(but how you tell,I don't know)but it's posted,and you are confronted by the 'owner'and ordered off.....?
fisticuffs.

[quaint bucket]

two men enter, one man leaves



I remember seeing those signs on one FSR. My wife was asking about them and I said, "let's drive up another 4km up."

Sure enough, the signs were gone after that. I usually take them with a huge grain of salt but I wouldn't try to contest an actual metal gate.

[Sofa King]

au contraire. there are plenty of metal gates illegally blocking roads out there. its crazy the lengths some people will go. if i had explosives or a portable cutting torch, believe me, theyd be gone.

[Backwoodninjajunky]

Take the signs down, and if they are put back up maybe take them down again, someone is bound to give up detering people or get really f n choked haha call surrounding city halls, or ?? If it's be changed to private there mist be a record somewhere...

[quaint bucket]

au contraire. there are plenty of metal gates illegally blocking roads out there. its crazy the lengths some people will go. if i had explosives or a portable cutting torch, believe me, theyd be gone.

The problem is, how would I identify which gates are illegal and which ones are not? I have no qualms if I know that ONE particular gate is illegal because it would be as easy as ripping it out of the ground with my vehicle.

[Doostien]

Also, for those relying on the IMAP ICF layer to determine private property, be warned that it is fraught with inaccuracies. Really have to pull the title to know for sure, as some private stuff can have reverted to Crown and then have been subject to a subsequent disposition, and there's also other reasons we won't get into.

And then yes, there are also the leases. IMAP should be fairly accurate in depicting these. They should not be confused with open range land, which is why we see cattle in cutblocks, etc at certain times of year. Ranchers can gain authorization to allow cattle to graze open range Crown land, but access to those areas may not be impeded. With grazing leases, the lessee has the right to control access year round regardless of whether it is fenced or livestock is present. Sucks, but it's true. The fact that any grazing leases are renewed is total bullshit. At one point, the Province adopted a policy where grazing leases were not being renewed at expiry, but rather were being replaced with licenses and/or permits. Cattleman's Association went political and the ball-less bureaucrats started renewing leases to those who already had them. To the best of my knowledge, new grazing leases are not being issued. In a day with so many competing land-uses, leases are not an appropriate form of tenure for grazing since the grazing can take take place just as effectively under tenures that don't allow control of access.

It should be noted that in some cases, when leases have been renewed, certain Provincial employees have actually done their due diligence and deleted access routes/trails through the leases that lead to lands beyond. In other words, you can legally traverse the leases on designated routes, but you still are prohibited from accessing the leased lands through which the routes run. They are not as common as one would hope, but you can identify these instances on IMAP by looking for leases where the color of the lease layer is absent over certain routes through the lease.

Regarding interspecific competition between cattle and ungulates, I'm not sure why the literature repeatedly points toward an absence of significant competition, and when I'm out on range land I can almost always find where cattle have ransacked tracts of shrubs and forbs that cattle aren't supposed to impact. Although I'm an Agrologist, I'm not a cattle expert, and yet I find evidence of cattle adversely impacting wildlife (ungulate and other) habitat on a regular basis. Certainly if I were a deer, I'd be averse to drinking out of watercourses that had been shat and pissed in for months by cattle.

Leases aren't quite as simple as you make it out to be. Leases were kept because cattlemen's went to the Provincial government with one simple fact. Most leases are integral to proper operation of the adjoining ranch. That's why most ranchers took no issue with them not issuing new ones. Some leases have had hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on them. Be it improvements to the forage, being for both cattle AND wildlife, weed control, water management, etc etc.

As far as I've seen the cattle and deer don't seem to like each other much. But that doesn't stop them from eating out of the same feedbunk as the cows do. Nor do they have an issue drinking out of the pond that the 300 head of cattle drink out of for 4 months.


fisticuffs.

I hope that isn't the attitude you would actually take. No matter what happens it wouldn't end well. It'd probably either be a trip to the big house, or into the dirt. Last I checked Farm kids grow up big.


Take the signs down, and if they are put back up maybe take them down again, someone is bound to give up detering people or get really f n choked haha call surrounding city halls, or ?? If it's be changed to private there mist be a record somewhere...

Would you be one of the Folks tearing my signs down? Honestly, the big ones cost almost ten dollars, and the little ones, for one that won't fade after a few months, its another two bucks. I spent $140 dollars before the start of hunting season on signs, I spent another $50 last week replacing the ones that were missing. Why should my business include such a large 'sign' budget?

[vortex hunter]

Leases aren't quite as simple as you make it out to be. Leases were kept because cattlemen's went to the Provincial government with one simple fact. Most leases are integral to proper operation of the adjoining ranch. That's why most ranchers took no issue with them not issuing new ones. Some leases have had hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on them. Be it improvements to the forage, being for both cattle AND wildlife, weed control, water management, etc etc.

As far as I've seen the cattle and deer don't seem to like each other much. But that doesn't stop them from eating out of the same feedbunk as the cows do. Nor do they have an issue drinking out of the pond that the 300 head of cattle drink out of for 4 months.



I hope that isn't the attitude you would actually take. No matter what happens it wouldn't end well. It'd probably either be a trip to the big house, or into the dirt. Last I checked Farm kids grow up big.



Would you be one of the Folks tearing my signs down? Honestly, the big ones cost almost ten dollars, and the little ones, for one that won't fade after a few months, its another two bucks. I spent $140 dollars before the start of hunting season on signs, I spent another $50 last week replacing the ones that were missing. Why should my business include such a large 'sign' budget?

thats funny stuff... last I heard CITY BOYS GROW UP BIG ALSO lol

[J_T]

If we're going to get into the "grey" area of defining private land or more importantly being able to access it and play dumb when I get caught because there wasn't a fence or a sign, you're going to have to go in to case law.

At the route of this, everyone must understand, ignorance (there was no sign. I didn't see a fence) is no excuse to prevent having charges laid. Your case will be tried and a judge will render a decision. Just remember, the basis of his decision will be, as a user of the land, it is your absolute responsibility to know the status of the land.

So take your chance and manage the risk. Just know the consequences.

And to the comment about country boys and city boys. From my experience City boys focus more on posting douche bag pictures of themselves wearing heavy gold chains and trendy sleeveless shirts on facebook than country boys. Just sayin you can't buy that stuff in the country.

[vortex hunter]

miss the comics of hbc lol need some popcorn